Archaeological Museums and Public Policies in Greece: A Gordian Knot

Archaeological Museums and Public Policies in Greece: A Gordian Knot by Ersi Filippopoulou 50 MUSEUM international

E rsi Filippopoulou is an architect and a jurist, specialised in archaeological museums planning and programming. She served as Director of Museum Studies in the Greek Ministry of Culture, and was also responsible for the new Acropolis museum project over 18 years. She worked as Director of the Greek Managing Authority for the European Union, co-financing cultural projects for six years. She served as an adjunct faculty member at the Departments of Architecture of the Universities of Thessaloniki and Patras, Greece. She was elected chairperson of the ICOM International Committee for Architecture and Museum Techniques (ICAMT) twice on a three year mandate. Since 2012, she has been working as an advisor on heritage issues to the Peloponnese Regional Governor. She recently published a book entitled Τo neo Mouseio tis Acropolis dia Pyros kai Sidirou, which retraces the new Acropolis Museum s tumultuous history from its inception to its inauguration (Papasotiriou Publishers 2011). Her current research project is a comparative approach to the Greek archaeological museum paradigm. MUSEUM international 51

I woke with this marble head in my hands; It exhausts my elbow and I don t know where to put it down. (George Seferis, Mythistorema, 1989) The relationship between Greece and its archaeological heritage is a difficult one. In George Seferis s words, the contradiction manifests itself through lived experience, but also on a symbolic level. Ancient Greek heritage is abundant and visible throughout the country, and it is no wonder that, when unspecified, the generic word museum refers to archaeological museums. Archaeological museums not only outnumber any other types of museum in the country, but are also the most known and visited ones, with only the archaeological sites surpassing them in popularity, according to data provided by the Hellenic Statistical Authority (Hellenic Statistical Authority 2017). Although extensive collections of Greek antiquities may be found within a number of general encyclopaedic or art museums in the west, Greek archaeological museums are differentiated by their concept, role and management. Their activity is inextricably linked to the discourse on and practice of archaeology and to the state authorities responsible for the protection and preservation of the country s monuments and archaeological excavation finds. They are intertwined to such a degree that one cannot consider the first one without considering the second. The present article addresses the issue of museum public policy by referring to the power relations affecting museums in the specific political and cultural context of a country whose ancient heritage is shared by the entire western world. Reference to the conceptual, institutional and organisational characteristics of Greek archaeological museums will provide an insight into the policies that support their traditional role as treasuries for the material evidence of national identity, without offering incentives for more extroverted activities. However, after the implementation of a major infrastructure programme and exhibition improvements throughout the country during the last 20 years, the time has come to consider changing the policy approach to more people-centred initiatives. Cultural and ideological context Antiquity has played a dominant role in national consciousness and is at the heart of all policies concerning Greek archaeological museums. Before the modern Greek nation-state was officially established in 1830, the idealised culture of ancient Hellas both material and non-material, was to the European intelligentsia a pillar of European civilisation (Hamilton 1993, p. 16; Snell 1953, p. v; Delanty 2008, p. 93; Most 2008, p. 151). Ancient Hellenic works of art and architecture were intensely admired in the Romantic Age and in the 18th and 19th centuries; Grand Tour travellers acquired antique remains, which formed the core collections of ancient Greek art exhibited in western museums. It was only natural, then, for the Greek political and intellectual elite to adopt this idealised paradigm in order to reshape the new state s national identity after four centuries of Ottoman rule and thus gain legitimacy among the Great Powers of that time, namely England, France, and Russia (Tsoukalas 2002; Prévélakis 2007). Because of this hierarchical formation within the national cultural structure, Greek collective identity was torn between two opposing stereotypes: one based on religion and pre-modern structures and the other on the idealised classical past (Herzfeld 1987, p. 41), with Greek and European archaeology playing a key role in it (Herzfeld 2002, pp. 900-901). Although the national narrative was reformulated from 1860 to 1874, emphasising the diachronic cultural and historical continuity of Greece from prehistoric times to the modern era, the admiration for Antiquity has remained intense (Kotsakis 2003). As the newly liberated country was extremely poor, the first museum, established in 1829 as the National Museum, was a single room in a multi-functional orphanage building on Aegina island, operating as the state repository of national antiquities (Resolution no 49/1829, on the establishment of the National Museum). The institutional framework for museum policies was set up five years later, integrating museums for antiquities and coins in archaeological practice and services (Voudouri 2003, pp. 18-23). It was also declared that all the antiquities within Greece, as works of the ancestors of the Greek people, are regarded as the national property of all the Greek people in general, and they should be protected (Royal Decree of 10 (22) May 1834, on collections and antiquities). The subsequent archaeological laws of 1899, 1932 and 2002 strengthened even further the state s complete control on all issues concerning property and management of antiquities, including archaeological museums (Law ΒΧΜΣΤ /1899 on Antiquities; Law 5351/1932 on Codification of Legislation on Antiquities; Law 3028/2002 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage). 52 MUSEUM international

The prevailing state priorities were archaeological excavations and the restoration of ancient monuments, as their physical presence in the urban landscape served the desired national narrative better than museums did (Kokkou 1997). It took 31 years (1858-1889) for the National Archaeological Museum to be built in Athens. Its creation prompted the state to broaden its policies on the mission of museums in order to include pedagogy, the dissemination of archaeological knowledge and the appreciation of fine arts. To implement the new policy, state exhibition guidelines were drawn up, which stated that the exhibits should be arranged in chronological order, with an emphasis on their aesthetic values. This linear Greek art narrative has been promoted until recently by most authorities in the country (Plantzos 2008, p. 265; Gazi 2011, p. 391). In the decades that followed and to this very day, ancient heritage has remained a source of pride for Greeks, their admiration resembling sometimes a quasi-religious cult. Hamilakis argues that [i]f antiquities in modern Greece have acquired the status of sacred artefacts [...] then museums are their temples, their sacred repositories, inviting reverence (Hamilakis 2007, p. 46). Because their Byzantine heritage connecting them with Christian Orthodoxy, both historic periods jointly form a strong national narrative, despite the cultural antinomies between them. The idealisation of Hellenic culture and the narrow conception of the past has recently been questioned in the academic sphere. However, there are still fervent admirers of Hellenic Antiquity and 19th century archaeological culture within and outside the country (Morris 1994, p. 43; Mazower 2008, p. 39). Nineteen foreign archaeological institutions remain active in the country under the supervision of Greek archaeological services. Furthermore, the local political elite is keen on maintaining the myth of Ancient Hellas. Therefore, Greek archaeological museums are expected to express pride for the antique past leaving aside its less glorious social aspects and to resist the competition approach adopted by the present day broader leisure sector. Institutional overview In Greece, the term archaeological museum commonly applies to institutions that hold and exhibit works of the ancient Hellenic civilisations from the beginnings of Prehistory (roughly from the 6th millennium B.C) to Late Antiquity (4th century A.D). Museums with collections dating back from Late Antiquity up to 1830 A.D are called Byzantine and those that cover both broad historic periods, Diachronic. Given that all the museums share the same legal and administrative status and are centrally supervised and regulated by the same governmental directorate, my use of the term will henceforth designate all three categories. Similarly, under the current Greek legislation, cultural goods up to 1830 A.D are defined as ancient monuments (Law 3028/2002 on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage). The only difference lies in the varying administrative procedures needed to verify their status for some categories dating after 1453 A.D (Law 3028/2002, on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage). Central tenets The conceptual role of Greek archaeological museums as repositories of the nation s excavated historical treasures has defined their institutional structure as an integral part of the country s heritage protection system, which must preserve historical memory for the present and future generations (Law 3028/2002, on the Protection of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage). The state is responsible for its protection according to Article 24 of the Greek Constitution. Therefore, all but one archaeological museums are administered through the archaeo logical services of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Sports (henceforth Ministry ). Their operating budgets are included in the larger budget of the Ministry and their earnings do not benefit them directly. As a part of the public sector stricto sensu, they are directly affected by diverse public policies. Their institutional context affects all aspects of their operation, including their relationship with the public and potential sponsors, their priorities and the scope of their initiatives. For the great majority, their collections consist of excavation finds. Therefore, the term collections cannot be taken in the literal sense of the word, since they have been formed by archaeological activities and not by collectors choices, although there have been some acquisitions through donations. Objects dating back to Byzantine and post-byzantine times are mainly but not limited to religious artefacts of the Early Christian, Byzantine, Medieval, post-byzantine and later periods. All objects dated to 1453 A.D belong to the state. The same applies to excavation or other archaeological research finds dated to 1830 A.D Private collectors are allowed to possess archaeological objects dated to 1453 A.D, but the formal owner is the state, while the right to private ownership of other ancient monuments dating from 1453 to 1830 or of imported ones dated before 1453 A.D is exercised under the terms and conditions of the above-cited Law 3028/2002. Although the Greek national narrative was reformulated from 1860 to 1874, the admiration for Antiquity remains intense. MUSEUM international 53

Current status Today in Greece, there are approximately 210 archaeological museums including state archaeological collections that are not open to the public. Their number fluctuates, as all but one have no separate legal personality and they are constantly subject to changes due to new museums opening or old ones closing. In any case, they constitute the largest group of a total of 550 Greek museums of all types, according to an estimate by the Ministry s Archaeological Museums and Collections Department (Garezou 2016). Together with approximately 390 archaeological sites and monuments under the same administration, archaeological museums are part of a centralised governmental system for heritage protection (Ministry of Culture and Sports 2017). The vast majority of Greece s archaelogical museums are administered through the Ministry s regional archaeological services, which are called Ephorates of Antiquities (henceforth Ephorates ). In its given geographical area of jurisdiction, each Ephorate s portfolio includes the protection and excavation activities in all heritage sites and monuments dating from prehistory up to 1830 A.D, as well as the curation, management and promotion of all museums, sites and monuments of the same period. Consequently, each Ephorate director also assumes duties as director of the museums encompassed, regardless of their number. The centralised administration system does not allow for those museums to function as semi-autonomous units to promote culture, while the lack of human and financial resources lead to multi-tasking, usually prioritising antiquities protection over culture-related and audience-building activities. The geomorphological characteristics of the Greek territory add to these difficulties: for example, the Ephorate of Cyclades area of jurisdiction is 33 islands in the Aegean Archipelago, rich in heritage and popular tourist destinations, where it is responsible for monuments preservation and archaeological excavations, as well as for running 16 archaeological museums and nine collections. Seven major archaeological museums operate as Ministry directorates instead of being integrated within an Ephorate. These are the National Archaeological Museum (Athens), Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki, Byzantine and Christian Mu seum (Athens), Mu se um of Byzantine Culture (Thessaloniki), Epigraphic Muse um (Athens), Numismatic Mu seum (Athens), and the Αr chaeo logical Mu se um of Heraklion (Presidential Decree 4/2018 on the organisation of the Ministry of Culture and Sports). All Ephorates and museums are part of the structural hierarchy of the General Directorate of Antiquities and Cultural Heritage of the Ministry, which is the highest civil service administration responsible for the stewardship of the nation s historical treasures. The only archaeological museum to have been granted administrative autonomy is the new Acropolis Museum. It houses excavation finds and architectural sculptures from ancient architectural monuments, which still remain the property of the State, as their ownership has not been transferred to the museum. It was established by law in 2008 as an arms-length legal entity under public law (the latter involves the application of a strict set of rules relating to its financial management), governed by a board of directors appointed by the Minister of Culture and Sports -henceforth Minister (Law 3711/2008, on the establishment of the museum s legal entity). Three other museums, which are not officially categorised as archaeological museums, are successful in exhibiting Greek antiquities. They were established by private collectors, their collections having been acquired by purchase abroad, and they operate as self-directed non-profit legal entities. The oldest and biggest one is the Benaki Museum in Athens, established in 1930 by the collector Antonis Benakis as a non-profit foundation under private law (Fig. 1), following the donation to the Greek State of his antiquities collection together with artefacts covering the entire spectrum of Greek culture, from ancient times to the present (Law 4599/1930 on accepting the donation and establishing the Benaki Museum). Under a similar non-profit private law status, the Museum of Cycladic Art, founded in Athens in 1986, is dedicated to the study and promotion of ancient cultures of the Aegean islands and of Cyprus, housing the collection of Nicholas and Dolly Goulandris (Law 1610/1986 on establishing the relevant foundation). Due to their distinct legal status, both are more flexible in their policies and more open to new endeavours than their state counterparts. A smaller museum, the Paul and Alexandra Kanellopoulos Museum in Athens, was established in 1976 following the donation to the Greek state of the homonymous collection. It has been operating since 2007 as a legal entity under public law (Law 3600/2007 on establishing the legal entity). Together with approximately 390 archaeological sites and monuments under the same administration, archaelogical museums are part of a centralised governmental system for heritage protection. 54 MUSEUM international

Fig. 1. An exhibition of contemporary art next to antiquities at the Benaki Museum in April 2009. Ersi Filippopoulou Boundaries and constraints Tstitution he organisational context of an inoffers insight regarding many of its activities, but at the same time it may unitentionally hinder others. Nevertheless, it offers insight regarding the institution s strategic choices. In the case of Greek archaeological museums, their organisational structure reflects the strategic primacy of their curatorial over their communicative role. In the Ephorates, museum management is just one of the duties of the department responsible for the protection of antiquities. In the seven major museums, an exhibition and communication department was only recently established (Presidential Decree 4/2018). The staff are mostly civil servants, but there are also private law-based public employees and temporary ones employed for short periods to cover temporary requirements. Acal, rigid institutional and bureaulthough the centralised, hierarchi- cratic structure is an impediment to initiative and creativity, resourceful staff members, inspired by recent trends in archaeology and museum management, often conceive interesting permanent and temporary exhibitions, propose and implement educational programmes for children or organise lectures and musical events. However, they are constrained by state priorities given that all exhibitions must be approved and financed by the Ministry s central public authorities. MUSEUM international 55

Financial policies and procedures are also defined by state centralisation. Indeed, museums depend almost exclusively on public funding as either direct payments defined in the national budget or public grants. The admission pricing policy for all Greek archaeological museums and sites, except the Acropolis Museum, is defined centrally by the Ministry, which essentially controls how revenue is managed. Revenue for services rendered and sale of products are collected by the Archaeological Receipts Fund (known as TAPA or TAP from its Greek acronym), a public-law entity which also manages on-site shops and cafés. This revenue is partly redistributed to the Ephorates and museums in order to cover some of their operational costs, partly used to compensate private property owners in instances of expropriation due to archaeological reasons, and partly to finance other cultural policies at the discretion of the Minister, who also appoints the members of TAPA s board of directors. TAPA was established in 1929, when the number of archaeological museums and sites open to the public was much smaller and attendance was limited, TAPA has nowadays reached its limit, as its administrative structure is outdated and unable to apply modern management methods (Eptakoili 2017b). 1 Development and managerial constraints The system s inflexibility causes constraints in the development of appropriate marketing strategies. Conse quently, revenue is disappointingly low, especially from catering and retailing activities, while there are many complaints about the quality of these services. According to a 2014 study, the average revenue per museum visitor in Greece falls well short of the European average nearly six euros instead of 19.7 eur, while 85 per cent of said revenue comes from ticket sales only (Tsagari 2014). Individual museums have no means or motivation to generate income and they use political pressure in order to fund their activities. In 2016, revenue from all archaeological museums, including the Acropolis Museum, amounted to only 13,448 million euro (Hellenic Statistical Authority 2017). Admission charges were raised in 2017, which may eventually prove counterproductive in the long run as far as visitor attendance and social inclusion are concerned. However, the lack of managerial perspective is not entirely due to the state. Neither the politically powerful Association of Greek Archaeologists nor the civil society and the media have ever asked for more autonomy for museums. They regularly demand more public funds and a more efficient TAPA. According to Professor Doumas, most archaeologists think that a revenue-seeking culture is incompatible with their institutional mission (Eptakoili 2017a). Centralisation also has a negative effect on sponsorships. Although tax incentives are foreseen by law for cultural sponsorships, the sponsorship deal must be done with the Ministry and the sponsoring money must be deposited into the Regular State Budget and then reach the intended museum through a heavy bureaucratic procedure. At the same time, a more autonomous Acropolis Museum manages its own revenues, despite public financial management constraints, and has the necessary flexibility in decision-making, which enables it to form its own policies and cover its basic operational expenses by taking advantage of the ample venues in the building. Be that as it may, over the last two decades changes in the broader social, economic and cultural environment both in Greece and internationally led to a more open-minded approach to archaeological museums. However, although this perspective was applied to the planning and design of their new facilities and exhibitions, it did not call into question their traditional ideological and bureaucratic structure. Improved facilities: new possibilities and challenges Until the 1990s, the image of Greek archaeological museums corresponded to their rather antiquated management style. Museum space did not meet the curators and the visitors needs and expectations, as the rate of collection growth has always been higher on the agenda than the facilities available although not all objects are suitable for display. 2 Numerous small peripheral mu se ums were housed in low-cost buildings with modest displays, disproportionate to the wealth and importance of the ancient objects. Their often poor construction quality, lack of maintenance and inadequate visitor facilities made them unattractive. 3 According to the author s empirical knowledge based on visits in situ, galleries sometimes became storage rooms because of the lack of space for new archaeological finds. Visitors comfort and satisfaction came as a second priority. For instance, in the popular old Acropolis Museum, located on the Acropolis plateau, a gallery closed to the public for many years (from 1993 until 2008, when antiquities were moved to the new museum) in order to house a conservation workshop for the Parthenon restoration. Infrastructural improvements Progress came in the early 2000s. A major programme of museum infrastructure and exhibition improvements was implemented throughout the country at an unprecedented rate, thanks to grants allocated by the European Union and the Greek State. Fifty-two archaeological museum infrastructure renovation or creation projects have been implemented since 2000 and 32 new permanent exhibitions regarding museums of both national and regional significance were presented (Ministry of Culture and Sports 2016; 2018). The scale and complexity of the new projects have also changed. New, extended or renovated buildings and better exhibition 56 MUSEUM international

Fig. 2. The Archaeological Museum of Arta in Epirus was recently inaugurated. Ersi Filippopoulou spaces add spatial experience to the pleasure of viewing the exhibits, and a range of visitor facilities multipurpose or temporary exhibition halls, cafés, museum shops, educational spaces, auditoriums complement the traditional functional programme, albeit without devoting prime space to them (Cohen 2015, p. 494). Tect combine archaeological needs he criteria considered to fund a proj- and the political pressure from local communities and authorities, although the initial project request was typically submitted by the archaeological authority responsible. The central headquarters of the Ministry and the Minister him/herself decide, taking into account the opinion of the relevant central directorates and Museum Council. The funding is provided by the Treasury or from EU and Greek State co-financed grants. Once the initial decision is made, smaller components carry it out within the Ministry s rather conventional hierarchical structure, according to their jurisdiction (Filippopoulou 1988). Tconstruction ensures the implemen- Nout that the absence of a realistic his approach to planning, design and onetheless, it should be pointed tation of the prevailing policy and the accumulation of know-how. Major errors can be avoided through controls and design reviews, and the existing paradigm improved without transformational changes that might challenge it. On the other hand, replacing a strong leadership or a project manager by allocating responsibilities across several directorates and departments may bring about occasional coordination difficulties and execution delays. and coherent long-term museum policy that would include the planning of a new infrastructure s management and sustainability is the Achilles heel of the decision-making process. While housing, preservation and exhibiting needs have been carefully assessed, new projects lack a strategic plan for their future operation and sustainability. The government was expected to be the source of the funds needed for operational expenses on the assumption that it is the state s duty to protect national heritage. This was correct for many years, insofar as the context was favourable: the rhythm, number and scale of new projects were low and the country s economy was on the rise. The Acropolis Museum: an exception he system s obvious limitations compelled the state to follow a different path for the development of its most complex and ambitious museum project, that of the new Acropolis Museum. The turbulent 33-year history of this museum from its initial conception to its inauguration in 2009, with four architectural competitions, nine legislative acts, almost a hundred judicial decisions, countless reviews, criticisms and conflicts constitute an evidence both of the concept s evolution and the difficulties involved (Filippopoulou 2011). T Snately been reversed. As Greece facince 2009, the situation has unfortu- es its worst financial crisis after World War II, the imposed austerity measures also include cuts in the cultural sector. Although the new projects are of a relatively modest scale, in the case of inadequate funding the system s inflexibility does not provide many alternatives other than reducing opening hours, closing some galleries to the public or even closing doors altogether (Fig. 2). MUSEUM international 57

Fig. 3. The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. Ersi Filippopoulou Exhibitions: aestheticising or contextualising? Iwere beneficial for exhibitions, in that Eplay of the Byzantine and Christian mproved facilities and larger budgets qually interesting was the redis- an alternative to representation of antique remains as a linear aesthetic evolution of art a tradition dating back to over a century was proposed alongside physical renovation. Two factors have influenced this change: the increasing focus on the social role of museums heralded by academics and museum professionals alike, and the growing interest of a new generation of Greek state archaeologists in more visitor-friendly exhibitions. This has led to the contextualisation of the exhibited antiquities according to their original social context. The Archaeological Museum of Volos was the first to illustrate this shift from convention, with its 1975 redisplay of prehistoric artefacts. The objects were selected according to their significance in the region s prehistoric society and were no longer displayed in showcases in order to amplify the visitors educational experience (Malakasioti 1990). Museum of Athens (1999-2010) with a new interpretative approach, which, together with socially oriented extrovert activities, earned a place in TripAdvisor s list of the 25 Best Museums of the world in 2014. The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki likewise carried out an initiative to redisplay its artefacts from 2001 to 2006. The artefacts were grouped according to the thematic structure of a narrative about the ancient culture and historical evolution of Hellenic Macedonia, instead of being organised as artworks in chronological order or in spatial unities (Grammenos 2011). A similar and more modern approach was adopted for the new exhibitions or redisplays of several regional museums. Among them, the small museum of Tegea in the Peloponnese region stands out. Originally built in 1907-1908 and retrofitted in 2009-2014 to involve, in addition to conventional display systems, interactive ones, it was awarded a Special Commendation by the European Museum Forum in 2016 (Fig. 4). SMuseum of Byzantine Culture in imilarly, from 1997 to 2004, the Thessaloniki chose to exhibit its artefacts in two parallel narrative threads: a thematic and a chronological one wherein the interpretation of Byzantine culture was proposed through the objects displayed from the third to the 19th century. (Tourta 2006, pp. 277-8). The museum was awarded the Council of Europe s Museum Prize in 2005 (Fig. 3). 58 MUSEUM international during the retrofit and redisplay of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens in 2002-2004 [...] the presentation philosophy of exhibits did not change and the principle of classical purity and chronological sequence is maintained, according to its director, who emphasised that no experiments are allowed in a museum of such importance (quoted in Hourmouziadi 2006, pp. 115116). The exhibition is still centred on collections overview, as the information brochure attests to the visitor, even before they enter the museum (TAP, Publications Department 2017). Aconcept in the exhibition of the new esthetic delectation was also the Acropolis Museum in 2008-2009. The media and millions of visitors from all over the world admired it (Fig. 5). Yet, it drew some academic criticism for displaying a picture of the Acropolis out of its historical context (Plantzos 2011; Damaskos 2010, p. 18). Inew approach found fertile ground in t is perhaps no coincidence that the regional museums and those that do not exhibit classical art. The most exemplary Greek archaeological museums, which are considered the centres of Hellenic classical art by both the Greek and western archaeology and art world because of their collections, remained reluctant to break away from previously estab lished interpretative patterns of aesthet ic contemplation (Mouliou 2008). Hence, Fig. 5. Brochure for an educational programme of the National Archaeological Museum. Ersi Filippopoulou

Fig. 4. The National Archaeological Museum after the redisplay in 2002-2004. Ersi Filippopoulou Ethetically compelling exhibitions do ven sociologically oriented and aes- not, as a general rule, integrate controversial views or alternative interpretations. Activities and events are intended to promote national values and the transmission of knowledge in a predominantly unidirectional pedagogic way. It should be noted that, in recent years, there have been efforts to attract young audiences through a multitude of free educational programmes, as well as lectures and cultural events for the general public. At the same time, some attempts to work with the contemporary arts have been made: modern exhibits juxtaposed with ancient ones, music and theatre performed in the exhibition halls. Thus, the policy of using ancient theatres as venues for contemporary performances has expanded to museums (Dallas 2015, pp. 18-9). Yelite have not shown any signs of et, Greek society and its political wishing to reappraise the paradigm established in the 19th century as the golden canon for the construction of Greek national identity (Gazi 2011, p. 391). As the connoisseurs and guardians of the nation s historical treasures, archaeologists are regarded by the Greek public Evaluating museum attendance in Greece Wmuseum attendance in a country? ho can define the benchmark for In the past, visitors to Greek archaeological museums were mainly scholars, pupils, a few art amateurs and, depending on growth of cultural tourism, foreign visitors. According to more recent data, in 2016 the annual attendance for all Greek state archaeological museums and collections was 3.07 million in addition to 1.4 million for the Acropolis Museum, while archaeological sites were far more popular, with 9.56 million visitors (Hellenic Statistical Authority 2017). That same year, the population of Greece was 10.757 million (Eurostat 2017) and tourist arrivals skyrocketed to an unprecedented 27.5 million (Athens Macedonian News Agency 2017). If we compare the 3.07 million visitors to the 2.69 million ones in 2002 (the new Acropolis Museum was then under construction)4, the small rise of 14 per cent is disproportionate compared to the major infrastructure and exhibition upgrading programme that has been implemented in recent years. In the same period, visitors to archaeological sites have risen from 6.67 million to 9.56, that is 43 per cent. Tthat has been able to compete on a he only Greek museum of any type worldwide basis is the new Acropolis Museum. Since its inauguration in 2009 it is included in the list of the top 100 most-visited art museums in the world, ranking 37th in 2016 according to the yearly attendance survey by The Art Newspaper (2017, p. 14). with respect. Nevertheless, the fact that classical antiquity has been set on a pedestal of its own has its downsides. Besides its excessive political use as a symbolic capital, the temptation to keep on creating a status distance between the visitor and the exhibits is sometimes too strong. While expert authority is not disputed, small gestures like using formal archaeological jargon in captions, descriptive panels and museum guides, or banning amateur photography in the exhibition because it is unpublished material, are reminiscent of an elitism and exclusiveness that is incompatible with opening up museums to the community. Doxanaki 2011). A survey on EU citizens cultural access and participation in 2013 has showed that 84 per cent of the general Greek population had not been to a museum in a year, attributing this primarily to lack of interest, secondly to lack of time and, thirdly to high expense (European Commission 2013, p. 26, T7). Although Greek society and government see archaeology as a national asset and it has been empirically observed that many communities and local politicians favour having an archaeological museum in their area, the situation is not encouraging as far as the appeal of those museums to the public is concerned.5 Tthe Greek public, in particular on here is not enough specific data on museum-goers or non-goers, but case evidence shows that Greeks do not attend museums regularly (Sykka 2015; MUSEUM international 59

Social and political contexts To quote Kenneth Hudson: The most fundamental change that has affected museums during the [past] half century [ ] is the now almost universal conviction that they exist in order to serve the public. The old style museum felt itself under no such obligation [...]. The museum s primeresponsibility was to its collections, not its visitors (Hudson 2014, p. 136). It could be argued that Greek archaeological museums, despite the progress made in multiple dimensions, have not in their vast majority yet made the leap from the old-style museum to that of the new era. Operating as integral parts of Greek civil service, they experience common advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is, of course, that the state covers the operating costs and guarantees job security, even if salaries are low and good performance is not always rewarded. It also allows archaeologists to concentrate more on antiquities stewardship and research. It should also be recalled that Ephorates personnel are responsible for the protection of the monuments and the excavation activities in the area of their jurisdiction, therefore working under a lot of pressure from citizens, developers, politicians and construction companies. Those who are specialised in museum studies and fervently wish to apply more visitor-friendly practices in museum management have to overcome many bureaucratic hurdles along the way. Nevertheless, most Greek museum professionals feel uncomfortable about the fact that museum administrations are not entitled to full ownership of any project and deem themselves under-qualified for museum management, while confident about their academic skills, according to research by the British Council (2016, p. 11-12). Effects of the post-2009 crisis The country s general administrative system adds more difficulties. It has been described over the years by many expert reports, academic studies and public opinion surveys as rigid, legalistic, bureaucratic and politically dependent (Makrydemetres et al. 2016, pp. 6-7), becoming increasingly inflexible during the recent financial crisis years. The situation in the archaeological museum sector has also worsened during that period (Howery 2013) although, I would argue, not so dramatically as the media would have the public believe. It merely brought the pre-existing weaknesses to light and made them more visible (Filippopoulou 2015). Gazi, who studied the crisis s impact on archaeological museums, also concluded that, despite a number of individual initiatives, the crisis has accentuated long-standing structural deficiencies relating to heritage management as a whole. The centralised state control and the rigid bureaucratic framework lead to introversion and inflexibility. These run counter to what is required for museums to adapt to the changed external environment (Gazi 2017). However, neither the archaeological community, civil society nor the Greek political system want a radical policy change. Their views were clearly expressed during the 2008 Parliament vote on the decision to manage the new Acropolis Museum as a self-directed legal entity. The Association of Greek Archaeologists (AGA) was unanimously against this proposal. In its 2008 Resolution on this occasion, a greater administrative flexibility for archaeological museums was called for, but only [...] in the context of their operation as integral parts of the Archaeological Service (AGA Resolution 09/06/2008). The parliamentary opposition agreed and the law passed, only just, with governmental majority. The complaints voiced in the public sphere usually concern closing of museums or galleries (due to a lack of personnel), inconvenient opening hours, cafés closing and poorly supplied museum shops. The default response is demands for more public funds and more personnel since public discourse focuses on the specific problems as a means to exert pressure on government to provoke state intervention. The blame for shortages falls every time on the government in office, who usually try to counteract these accusations with short-term measures, avoiding systemic issues that might strike a chord and trigger public accusations of commercialisation of the national heritage. The new Acropolis Museum s response to financial strain An example that illustrates the ambivalence between the desire for more museum financial resources and the aversion to commercial activities, even if they ensure the sustainability of a museum is an incident concerning the new Acropolis Museum. During its construction phase, the School of Architecture of the National Technical University of Athens protested that the planned restaurant and retail area was, according to their 2004 statement, not consistent with the gravity of a museum of such worldwide splendour, but with a common commercial venture (School of Architecture, NTUA 2004). C ontrary to predominant assumptions, the museum has been attentive to its income-generating activities. Its restaurant, which, as the Toronto newspaper, thestar.com announced, was ranked in 2014 as one of the Top 5 Museum Restaurants in the world by the travel review website VirtualTourist.com has worked in its favour. However, the museum s policy is far from commercial. Its admission fee is five euros, with quite a number of visitors eligible for reduced ticket or free admission. Visitor satisfaction is reflected in the reviews submitted by millions of online users of TripAdvisor, the online travel guide. As a result, the museum finds itself in the online guide s list of the 25 Best Museums of the world each year since 2013, ranking ninth in 2016 (Acropolis Museum 2014, online). 60 MUSEUM international

Looking into the future The great privilege of Greek archaeological museums as integral parts of the state archaeological administrative system may appear to be, broadly speaking, their access to the great amount of artefacts and works of art belonging to the state, objects that are very well documented in the context of place and history. In addition, their present and future enrichment is supposed to be guaranteed, since the state owns not only the millions of objects already excavated, but also the still unknown archaeological wealth that may exist below the soil even those on private lands as all of it constitutes public property by definition. However, a closer look at the micro - politics of the relationship between the major museums and the Ephorates reveals that, in reality, this privilege is restricted to museums run by the Ephorates, as they are the only ones that have uninterrupted physical access to the excavation finds in the area of their jurisdiction. Despite the fact that the artefacts are all owned by the state as a whole, and that exclusive rights of research are granted for a limited period of time only, as stipulated in Article 39 of Law 3028/2002, it is the unpublished archaeological material that constitutes the golden apple of discord together with the right of researching and publishing it (Adam-Veleni 2014). Therefore, the long-term mobility of antiquities among Ephorates and museums is limited and the major museums collections are not enriched with new finds (Mendoni 2017). For example, an observant visitor walking through the galleries of the National Archaeological Museum in Athens might notice that the ancient history of the territory of the Greek nation-state is represented by objects found when the state covered only half of its present size, as the borders of the modern-day Greece are not identical with those of the 19th century when the museum s collection developed. On the other hand, the storage areas of the Ephorates are overwhelmed with inaccessible excavation finds by invoking exclusive rights of often dubious legality (Voudouri 2003, p. 480). Upgrading infrastructure and exhibitions is not enough for Greek archaeological museums to reach their full potential, if the communication factor is devaluated. Extra policies are needed, but the entanglement of the institution with the unavoidably defensive administrative system of antiquities protection has created a Gordian knot, which cannot be easily undone. Depending on the political will, the approach could be either the pursuit of marginal gains with small incremental improvements, or a major revision of their mode of operation, following the example of Alexander the Great who, according to legend, applied a drastic solution to the seemingly intractable problem of disentangling that intricate knot. Finding a solution Both approaches should start with acknowledging the problem, since the number of Greek museum and monument visitors is among the lowest in the European Union (European Commission 2013, p. 26, T7). Qualitative research, mainly among both Greek and international non-visitors, might provide more insight into the exact reasons. Logic dictates that a lack of incentive to motivate museums to attract more visitors is counterproductive. On the other hand, allocating performance funds (for instance by distributing a percentage of ticket sales revenue directly to museums), encouraging museum to engage their audience with digital communication making also use of social media platforms, taking progress into account for staff promotions, giving awards to innovative initiatives, reducing bureaucracy by delegating authority, etc., might lead to some improvements without upsetting the status quo. Upgrading infrastructure and exhibitions is not enough for Greek archaeological museums to reach their full potential, if the communication factor is devaluated. Although these measures might produce good results, they would not be transformative. In order to shift the institution from its 19th century model to the modern-day paradigm, a new strategic plan will be needed with policies towards an organisational logic that depends less on the tight embrace with the paternalistic state and more on forging closer relations with the public. To begin with, the seven major museums, which operate now as directorates of the Ministry, should be given a separate legal personality, with greater administrative autonomy and a budget of their own (Voudouri 2003, pp. 462-466). The successful precedent of the new Acropolis Museum is encouraging, although all seven museums would need more support, as their brand is not as recognisable as that of the Acropolis. The most radical approach would be to address holistically the interdependence of archaeological museums with the protection mechanism of national antiquities, which at this moment leans too far in the direction of the latter. The usual argument against such policies is that antiquities are national treasures belonging to the state, therefore their repositories (as the archaeological museums are still considered if looked at from this perspective) should be an integral part of the civil service entrusted with their protection. However, ownership and protection of antiquities is not the same as their stewardship and management. The objects of the museum collections will remain the property of the state, but their management could be exercised at arms length, under state control and oversight (Voudouri 2003, pp. 466-467). Untangling the knot would strike a better balance between the object-centred culture of protection to the people-centred vision that has now become the desirable aim for modern-day museums. MUSEUM international 61

Greek archaeological museums are object-based institutions that still belong to the Humanist tradition, reflected in their primary vocation as guardians and interpreters of ancient heritage, and as formal pedagogues of the national narrative. Comparing the present to the past, there is no doubt that they have come a long way. Some of them are even experimenting with new ways of presenting ancient heritage in a more inclusive manner. Yet, this is only the beginning of a process that needs a radical shift in order to make them more visitor-friendly and sustainable in the long term. Evidence indicates that the promotion of state policies ensuring control and uniformity in decision-making has developed over the years into a suffocating operational framework for the sector, which nowadays is called to fulfil a more complex role than in the past. The system that had functioned adequately with a few small museums sheltering antiquities and addressed to a limited audience has reached its limits. However, deep-rooted conceptions and stereotypes are an impediment to bringing about a museum paradigm that, according to Hudson, exists in order to serve the public (Hudson 1998/2014, p. 136). Since the 1990s both the internal and the external environments have been evolving at a rapid pace. The truly spectacular response to the challenge of upgrading infrastructure and exhibitions has created hopes that the Greek archaeological museum paradigm could be adapted to the new era, and thus benefit society, whether Greek or at large. Notes 1 In September 2017, TAPA s ex-president gave a public interview about the organisation s unsound functioning (Eptakoili 2017b). 2 For example, more than 300.000 objects have been recently excavated (not all of which are valuable, of course) in the new subway construction site in the city of Thessaloniki, as V. Tzevelekou reported for the newspaper Εφημερίδα των Συντακτών [Authors Newspaper], in an article published on 5 September, 2017. 3 The author, as Director of Museums Studies Directorate in the Ministry (1982-2001), has presented her empirical knowledge in a public lecture (Filippopoulou 1999). 4 The statistics for the year 2002 have been chosen as a reference because it was the first year that data referred to the same statistical basis as today. See Hellenic Statistical Authority (Hellenic Statistical Authority online). 5 As mentioned previously, empirical evidence clearly demonstrates this particular discrepancy. In my 30 years experience, I have observed that archaeological museums are mostly seen as symbolic and as an asset for tourism development. It should also be noted that the press and online media take up the issue of divergence rather lightly. Their main concern is whether museums are in good condition to accommodate visitors from abroad. References ӹӹacropolis Museum. 2017. [Online]. A Highlights Report. June 2016-May 2017. Available at: https://issuu.com/ theacropolismuseum/docs/acropolis_ report_web_e [accessed 28 February 2018]. Previous years reports also available at: http://www.theacropolismuseum. gr/en/content/annual-report [accessed 13 March 2018]. ӹӹadam-veleni, P. 2014. [Unpublished lecture]. The Archaeological Museum of Thessaloniki. A Social Museum. Lecture at the National University of Athens, Postgraduate Museum Studies Programme, given on the 25th of June 2014. ӹӹassociation of Greek Archaeologists (TAPA). 2008. [Online]. Ψήφισμα Για την Μετατροπή του Μουσείου Ακροπόλεως σε ΝΠΔΔ [Resolution for the Conversion of the Acropolis Museum to a Public Legal Entity]. 9/6/2008. Available at: http://www.sea.org.gr/details.php?id=255 [accessed 11 March 2018]. ӹӹassociation of Greek Archaeologists (TAPA) Publications Department. 2017. [Brochure]. National Archaeological Museum. Athens: Ministry of Culture and Sports, Archaeological Receipts Fund. ӹӹassociation of Greek Archaeologists (TAPA). 2018. [Online]. Σχετικά με το επιχειρησιακό σχέδιο του ΤΑΠΑ [In relation to TAPA s operational plan]. Press Release, 10/28.1.2018. Available at: http://www.sea.org.gr/details.php?id=744 [accessed 04 February 2018]. ӹӹathens Macedonian News Agency. 2017. [Online]. Εσπασαν κάθε ρεκόρ οι αφίξεις τουριστών το 2016 [Tourist Arrivals Broke Record in 2016]. Available at: http:// www.amna.gr/articlep/139326/espasankathe-rekor-oi-afixeis-touriston-to-2016 ӹӹbritish Council. Cultural Skills Unit. 2016. [Online]. Cultural Skills Research. Preliminary Research for the Museum Sector in Greece. [London]: British Council. 19 p. Available at: https://www.britishcouncil.gr/ sites/default/files/ima-greece-preliminaryresearch.pdf ӹӹcohen, B. 2015. Displaying Greek and Roman Art in Modern Museums. In: C. Marconi (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 473-498. ӹӹdallas, C. 2015. [Online]. Country Profile: Greece, October 2013. In: Council of Europe/ERICarts, Compendium of Cultural Policies and Trends in Europe. 17th edition. [Strasbourg]: Council of Europe. 47 p. Available at: http://www. culturalpolicies.net/down/greece_102013. pdf 62 MUSEUM international